On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 02:55:04PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> A new package, autoconf2.13, has now been uploaded. This package
> provides a compatibility environment for Autoconf 2.13. Packages
> that really need this older version of Autoconf can use it by
> replacing `autoconf' invocations by `autoconf2.13', and so on.
I would suggest instead having autoconf2.13 either use alternatives
or diversions to provide an "autoconf" binary, and arranging something
special with autobuilders so that these packages can continue to build.
I'm thinking it's about time we started making our autobuilders "just
cope" with packages that happen to not cope with the latest changes in
gcc3, libtool, autoconf and whatever other toolchain things have changed.
Filing brand new "doesn't build!" bugs and insisting on source changes to
80 or 200 or however many packages when I'm looking to start the freeze in
a week isn't good.
> Is the alternative of simply filing a bug on *every*
> package that Build-Depends: on autoconf acceptable?
No.
Cheers,
aj (as release manager)
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpVzBobmhgWY.pgp
Description: PGP signature